Obesity Journal study: It's not just CICO
Replies
-
NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »The study shows that their metabolism is PERMANENTLY altered. They didn't study regular dieters, but the implication is that any type of diet screws with your metabolism. I know a lot of folks (myself included) struggle to lose weight on my TDEE based on MFP calculations.
That is because it is only an estimate, and has to be adjusted based on real-world results on the scale (Assuming you are logging 100% correctly).1 -
My understanding is that the only way to scientifically measure BMR is in a lab that monitors oxygen expenditure in a closed room, over a long period of time. Otherwise, a persons RMR is an estimate. I wonder if these people were studied under true laboratory conditions to measure if their metabolism had truly been "damaged" or if their weight regain might not have been caused by something else, and just blamed on a damaged metabolism.
I didn't read the actual study because it gave me a 404 when I clicked it, but the article seemed to imply that they were tested in laboratory settings, and also measured for a few weeks beforehand using some other technology to make sure they weren't "gaming the test" by suddenly increasing their exercise just beforehand.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
if you don't lift weights while losing fat your BMR will go down more than you want. This is just 101 stuff.
I think you're overstating it a bit there. There are plenty of exercises that can help that don't involve lifting weights. Body weight training, swimming, biking, etc. can all help maintain and build muscle mass to help with BMR. Weight training has the advantage of allowing one to change weight and rep schemes down to a rather fine degree.4 -
Well wow. This is the fourth thread on mfp that I've seen this morning on this news article!
I'm predicting at least 10 more before we hit the evening news......12 -
My TDEE of course because that is what maintenance calories is....but I doubt if my BMR or my "metabolism" was permanently altered that I would be maintaining on 2400 to sometimes 3000 calories a day (3500 yesterday, but I was crazy active).
The point is that I don't have to eat less after I lost weight because I killed my metabolism. That just didn't happen so either I am a special snowflake...or it just isn't a thing.
Same, 50 pounds lost, TDEE unchanged. And we're not the only ones. I'm gonna lean out the window here and say this applies to pretty much every successful person on here. Are we special and that's why we were able to keep it off? Are we unaffected because we took our time and didn't do crazy *kitten* to get the weight off? Or are people generally unaffected and the differences in those people are because they lost so much they lost unreasonably much lean mass additionally to their body being basically like "hold the *kitten* on, are we actually dying here?"8 -
gebeziseva wrote: »What does this have to do with CICO?
CICO means that you lose weight if you eat less than you burn and you gain weight if you eat more than you burn. How much you're going to burn has nothing to do with this principle.
Also this is the only way a person can lose weight - eat less than you burn - more out than in. This is not disputable. So it is just CICO.
ETA: Now if you want to lose them pounds super fast and decide to eat like a mouse and then screw your metabolism as a result, well then I guess we always have natural selection at work
To your question - how do we get our TDEE/BMR tested - EASY
I do that for the last few month. I put all my data - the calories in, the calories out through exercise if any, and my weight in excel tables and calculate what my TDEE is as a result of that. This is my actual TDEE and it can't lie Fortunately for me it is very close to what the online formulas suggest it is (my calculation is experimental fitting of data, theirs is based on thermodynamics). This method can only work though if you are extra careful with your food measuring and logging.
One doctor associated with this study is quoted as saying that calorie rstricting diets just don't work. I thought it was a bit deprssing myself, I mean the whole thing was, for obese people and sortof hopeless.
0 -
ANother thought I just had.
They didn't know what their BMR was before they gained weight. THis study ASSUMED the contestants were at the average before hand and when they lost weight and were below the average they ASSUMED it was a decline. All of these contestants were morbidly obese. It is very likely they already had lower resting metabolic rates than the average population which is probably why with poor eating habits they were able to get that large.
To do this properly you would really need to measure someones BMR at their low weight. Have them gain a crap ton of weight and probably live like that for an appreciable amount of time, then lose back to their original weight and measure.
It would also be wise to account for differences in BF% because I'm guessing all these contestants have higher than average BF% at a given weight due to how much muscle they likely lost from following the extreme protocol.
I'm pretty sure that was checked, the bmr thing, before weight loss.
0 -
I also hate that they say in the article that this info is important because so many people regain the weight and blame themselves. Everyone is so quick to find excuses so here's another one, "It's not my fault, I'm doomed to be overweight." It's my metabolism's fault. It's my body's set point. The food industry made me do it. Meanwhile just this one forum is full of people who lost the weight and kept it off by finding what worked for them and taking responsibility for it.
15 -
I regained weight because I learnt nothing and stuffed my piggy little face with whatever I wanted not because I broke my metabolism. And until they die they didn't "permanently" do anything13
-
gebeziseva wrote: »What does this have to do with CICO?
CICO means that you lose weight if you eat less than you burn and you gain weight if you eat more than you burn. How much you're going to burn has nothing to do with this principle.
Also this is the only way a person can lose weight - eat less than you burn - more out than in. This is not disputable. So it is just CICO.
ETA: Now if you want to lose them pounds super fast and decide to eat like a mouse and then screw your metabolism as a result, well then I guess we always have natural selection at work
To your question - how do we get our TDEE/BMR tested - EASY
I do that for the last few month. I put all my data - the calories in, the calories out through exercise if any, and my weight in excel tables and calculate what my TDEE is as a result of that. This is my actual TDEE and it can't lie Fortunately for me it is very close to what the online formulas suggest it is (my calculation is experimental fitting of data, theirs is based on thermodynamics). This method can only work though if you are extra careful with your food measuring and logging.
One doctor associated with this study is quoted as saying that calorie rstricting diets just don't work. I thought it was a bit deprssing myself, I mean the whole thing was, for obese people and sortof hopeless.
Well that one doctor would be medically and physically wrong. The only diet that can work is one were you're restricting calories. There's no other way to get rid of fat, more energy needs to leave the body than enter.12 -
gebeziseva wrote: »What does this have to do with CICO?
CICO means that you lose weight if you eat less than you burn and you gain weight if you eat more than you burn. How much you're going to burn has nothing to do with this principle.
Also this is the only way a person can lose weight - eat less than you burn - more out than in. This is not disputable. So it is just CICO.
ETA: Now if you want to lose them pounds super fast and decide to eat like a mouse and then screw your metabolism as a result, well then I guess we always have natural selection at work
To your question - how do we get our TDEE/BMR tested - EASY
I do that for the last few month. I put all my data - the calories in, the calories out through exercise if any, and my weight in excel tables and calculate what my TDEE is as a result of that. This is my actual TDEE and it can't lie Fortunately for me it is very close to what the online formulas suggest it is (my calculation is experimental fitting of data, theirs is based on thermodynamics). This method can only work though if you are extra careful with your food measuring and logging.
One doctor associated with this study is quoted as saying that calorie rstricting diets just don't work. I thought it was a bit deprssing myself, I mean the whole thing was, for obese people and sortof hopeless.
What did this doctor say does work? I am serious about this question.
It is not hopeless. A lot of people manage to maintain their losses.
I lost over 1/2 of my current body weight and have kept it off for over 2 years, and plan to do everything I can to keep it off for ever, if possible, by monitoring myself and keeping logging and exercising. It works for me, and many others.
9 -
I also hate that they say in the article that this info is important because so many people regain the weight and blame themselves. Everyone is so quick to find excuses so here's another one, "It's not my fault, I'm doomed to be overweight." It's my metabolism's fault. It's my body's set point. The food industry made me do it. Meanwhile just this one forum is full of people who lost the weight and kept it off by finding what worked for them and taking responsibility for it.
Yeah, if there is any truth to it, even for obese people who lose fast, this study is still a big bummer for everyone then.
I hope the scientific report comes available, until then I'm going to discount this thing as another fear mongering hype article doing nobody any good.
0 -
ok - permanent as in six years. But my point is that it didn't correct itself after a few months or years1
-
snowflake930 wrote: »gebeziseva wrote: »What does this have to do with CICO?
CICO means that you lose weight if you eat less than you burn and you gain weight if you eat more than you burn. How much you're going to burn has nothing to do with this principle.
Also this is the only way a person can lose weight - eat less than you burn - more out than in. This is not disputable. So it is just CICO.
ETA: Now if you want to lose them pounds super fast and decide to eat like a mouse and then screw your metabolism as a result, well then I guess we always have natural selection at work
To your question - how do we get our TDEE/BMR tested - EASY
I do that for the last few month. I put all my data - the calories in, the calories out through exercise if any, and my weight in excel tables and calculate what my TDEE is as a result of that. This is my actual TDEE and it can't lie Fortunately for me it is very close to what the online formulas suggest it is (my calculation is experimental fitting of data, theirs is based on thermodynamics). This method can only work though if you are extra careful with your food measuring and logging.
One doctor associated with this study is quoted as saying that calorie rstricting diets just don't work. I thought it was a bit deprssing myself, I mean the whole thing was, for obese people and sortof hopeless.
What did this doctor say does work? I am serious about this question.
It is not hopeless. A lot of people manage to maintain their losses.
I lost over 1/2 of my current body weight and have kept it off for over 2 years, and plan to do everything I can to keep it off for ever, if possible, by monitoring myself and keeping logging and exercising. It works for me, and many others.
Yeah, I maintained my loss of 50 pounds for 5 years!
6 -
NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »ok - permanent as in six years. But my point is that it didn't correct itself after a few months or years
I know. I know.
That is the most depressing part...... when will it correct?
0 -
NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »ok - permanent as in six years. But my point is that it didn't correct itself after a few months or years
These were CRASH dieters. My n=1 says this does not happen when one loses weight sensibly.14 -
Key to maintaining weight loss, is to not go back to eating more calories than you burn. No matter how you lose the weight, you absolutely can not go back to overeating.7
-
kshama2001 wrote: »NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »ok - permanent as in six years. But my point is that it didn't correct itself after a few months or years
These were CRASH dieters. My n=1 says this does not happen when one loses weight sensibly.
Define sensibly.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »gebeziseva wrote: »What does this have to do with CICO?
CICO means that you lose weight if you eat less than you burn and you gain weight if you eat more than you burn. How much you're going to burn has nothing to do with this principle.
Also this is the only way a person can lose weight - eat less than you burn - more out than in. This is not disputable. So it is just CICO.
ETA: Now if you want to lose them pounds super fast and decide to eat like a mouse and then screw your metabolism as a result, well then I guess we always have natural selection at work
To your question - how do we get our TDEE/BMR tested - EASY
I do that for the last few month. I put all my data - the calories in, the calories out through exercise if any, and my weight in excel tables and calculate what my TDEE is as a result of that. This is my actual TDEE and it can't lie Fortunately for me it is very close to what the online formulas suggest it is (my calculation is experimental fitting of data, theirs is based on thermodynamics). This method can only work though if you are extra careful with your food measuring and logging.
One doctor associated with this study is quoted as saying that calorie rstricting diets just don't work. I thought it was a bit deprssing myself, I mean the whole thing was, for obese people and sortof hopeless.
Well that one doctor would be medically and physically wrong. The only diet that can work is one were you're restricting calories. There's no other way to get rid of fat, more energy needs to leave the body than enter.
I don't think he was saying restricting doesn't work. I think he was pointing out that our bodies figure out ways to get us to gain weight. Sure you can restrict calories, but in the case of the contestants, their metabolisms just slowed way down (I guess assuming they would continue to exercise 8 hours a day) to compensate for the weightloss. I don't think our bodies understand obesity. It just sees keeping the weight on as being the best thing it can do. When we try to get healthy, it freaks. A disheartening article for sure, but it makes me realize this is a lifelong process. Losings weight in 7 months may work, but if you can't keep up that level of excercise good luck because you'll gain it back.0 -
I also hate that they say in the article that this info is important because so many people regain the weight and blame themselves. Everyone is so quick to find excuses so here's another one, "It's not my fault, I'm doomed to be overweight." It's my metabolism's fault. It's my body's set point. The food industry made me do it. Meanwhile just this one forum is full of people who lost the weight and kept it off by finding what worked for them and taking responsibility for it.
Yeah, if there is any truth to it, even for obese people who lose fast, this study is still a big bummer for everyone then.
I hope the scientific report comes available, until then I'm going to discount this thing as another fear mongering hype article doing nobody any good.
But honestly, this is only depressing because people don't understand, not because of what it says! All I see is more proof that The Biggest Loser should be taken off the air. It is unrealistic, shaming, misleading, and does waaaaaay more harm than good to the contestants and the viewers. There is nothing in the article at least that gives any reason to apply these findings to people who lose the weight in a more moderate healthy manner. And it stinks that the article spins it that way.10 -
The calorie reduction on the Biggest Loser is extreme. A pound/day loss, massive changes in activity, and dehydration before weigh-ins is probably a horrible shock to your body, especially when your body is sedentary and used to getting the calories required to maintain 300-400 pounds (the dehydration parts I've read in other contestant interviews). That is not what the majority of people here seem to be doing. I know that's not what I'm doing.
Reading the maintenance/success stories here have shown me at least a good number of people who have lost substantial amounts (50+, 100+) of weight have not had an extreme drop in expected TDEE. They're eating their average maintenance calories and generally maintaining their weight, with maybe a few outliers. Not all of them are saying they're massively hungry following substantial weight loss. Not all of them even exercise. Hell, I've lost 60 already, am not starving at all hours, and I can eat at maintenance and not gain weight.
MFP users haven't been tested in a similar way via well-designed scientific research, but I have some issues with research featuring a fairly low sample size, poor environmental control, and lack of control subjects being extrapolated to all people eating at a caloric deficit.
10 -
I also hate that they say in the article that this info is important because so many people regain the weight and blame themselves. Everyone is so quick to find excuses so here's another one, "It's not my fault, I'm doomed to be overweight." It's my metabolism's fault. It's my body's set point. The food industry made me do it. Meanwhile just this one forum is full of people who lost the weight and kept it off by finding what worked for them and taking responsibility for it.
Yeah, if there is any truth to it, even for obese people who lose fast, this study is still a big bummer for everyone then.
I hope the scientific report comes available, until then I'm going to discount this thing as another fear mongering hype article doing nobody any good.
But honestly, this is only depressing because people don't understand, not because of what it says! All I see is more proof that The Biggest Loser should be taken off the air. It is unrealistic, shaming, misleading, and does waaaaaay more harm than good to the contestants and the viewers. There is nothing in the article at least that gives any reason to apply these findings to people who lose the weight in a more moderate healthy manner. And it stinks that the article spins it that way.
Yeah. That's what I meant too, its just another one of 'those articles'.
and its kinda sad people went through that body punishing thing and now there is this article in the New York Times saying obesity isn't what they thought and low cal diets don't work.
I wish they would correct that statement. Obviously people lose weight when they eat less caloriea than they burn. Maybe they just mean it isn't viable over the long term for obese people, thats kinda what I got from reading it.
0 -
ANother thought I just had.
They didn't know what their BMR was before they gained weight. THis study ASSUMED the contestants were at the average before hand and when they lost weight and were below the average they ASSUMED it was a decline. All of these contestants were morbidly obese. It is very likely they already had lower resting metabolic rates than the average population which is probably why with poor eating habits they were able to get that large.
To do this properly you would really need to measure someones BMR at their low weight. Have them gain a crap ton of weight and probably live like that for an appreciable amount of time, then lose back to their original weight and measure.
It would also be wise to account for differences in BF% because I'm guessing all these contestants have higher than average BF% at a given weight due to how much muscle they likely lost from following the extreme protocol.
I'm pretty sure that was checked, the bmr thing, before weight loss.
I'm talking about their BMR at their low weight. I would 100% expect someone to have a lower BMR at 200 pounds then at 400 pounds.
In the article they their BMR was 800 less than they would EXPECT for someone at that weight. They are comparing against the average not that persons BMR at that weight before they got large.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
snowflake930 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »ok - permanent as in six years. But my point is that it didn't correct itself after a few months or years
These were CRASH dieters. My n=1 says this does not happen when one loses weight sensibly.
Define sensibly.
No more than 1% of your body weight loss per week.
1 -
I saw this article this morning and my first thought was those people here in the forums that have every excuse in the book for why they are doing everything right and not losing weight. Another way for people to push the blame off themselves and their accountability and onto something else.
I found nothing really shocking about this article. If you lose weight like the BL contestants do, there is bound to be some damage to your body.10 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »if you don't lift weights while losing fat your BMR will go down more than you want. This is just 101 stuff.
I think you're overstating it a bit there. There are plenty of exercises that can help that don't involve lifting weights. Body weight training, swimming, biking, etc. can all help maintain and build muscle mass to help with BMR. Weight training has the advantage of allowing one to change weight and rep schemes down to a rather fine degree.
none come close to strength training.1 -
CICO based on internet calculators of TDEE is not accurate for everyone, and can be significantly off for some people. Period. Of course they work for MOST people. They're averages, and those averages have to be based on something. But there are going to be outliers.
I don't think it's unreasonable to, after an individual has (1) given a reduced calorie intake enough time to have good data and actually see results, (2) ensured that logging is happening accurately - food is weighed, liquids are measured, etc., and (3) received a full medical workup, to suggest that they have their RMR tested.
Everyone here on MFP is so quick to INSIST that CICO is the answer, is science, and cannot be violated or cheated. And they're 100% right. But what people fail to do is acknowledge that the "CO" side can be the wild card, rather than assuming that the only answer is that they're doing something wrong on the CI side. Some people really might be eating 1300 calories most days and not losing. It's possible.
I'm a prime example. I successfully lost about 90lbs in college (sensibly, and relatively easily - used Weight Watchers and lost that weight over a little more than full year, about 1.5lbs/week), and then gained it all back while I was pregnant and my kids were babies. I started trying to lose again by joining MFP just shy of 4 years ago, when my second and last child was about 9 months old. I've lost about 25lbs in that entire 4 years. All the info out there - Fitbits, online calculators, HRMs, EVERYTHING - was telling me that based on my stats and activity I should be easily losing 1-2 lbs per week eating about 1,500-1,700 calories per day even before exercise calories (which I did eat some of), but the scale barely budged. Every morsel I consumed was put on a scale first. Doctor's appointments confirmed that I was in near perfect health except for my weight. Finally, last November my doctor got my RMR tested. The result was that my RMR was 25-30% lower than any calculation that existed for my statistics (depending on what it was), which makes a lot more sense when compared to my actual change in weight over time. I even have decent muscle mass for my size, and I do and have always lifted weights, but that hasn't helped. It just turns out that, for whatever unknown reason, instead of burning 2,200 calories on a super sedentary day and 3,000+ on a very good day, my range is more like 1,500-2,000. You can see why I wasn't losing, I'm sure.
Since then, I've adjusted my intake, since it's clear that I need to stay under 1,300/day to lose even 0.75-1lbs per week, and that one bad day on a weekend could wipe out an entire week's worth of work. I've lost about 4 more lbs. However, if I ever do lose the weight (I'm still 60lbs over my goal weight) it's just going to get worse and worse - I may end up in a situation where 1,300 or less is my maintenance, even at 160lbs and with a moderately active lifestyle.
I'm not arguing that CICO isn't solid science, or that assuming that you have a crap metabolism should be something that people jump to when things aren't working for them - there are a LOT of steps to take first. But it needs to be recognized that some people really honestly DO burn significantly less than expected.17 -
ANother thought I just had.
They didn't know what their BMR was before they gained weight. THis study ASSUMED the contestants were at the average before hand and when they lost weight and were below the average they ASSUMED it was a decline. All of these contestants were morbidly obese. It is very likely they already had lower resting metabolic rates than the average population which is probably why with poor eating habits they were able to get that large.
To do this properly you would really need to measure someones BMR at their low weight. Have them gain a crap ton of weight and probably live like that for an appreciable amount of time, then lose back to their original weight and measure.
It would also be wise to account for differences in BF% because I'm guessing all these contestants have higher than average BF% at a given weight due to how much muscle they likely lost from following the extreme protocol.
I'm pretty sure that was checked, the bmr thing, before weight loss.
I'm talking about their BMR at their low weight. I would 100% expect someone to have a lower BMR at 200 pounds then at 400 pounds.
In the article they their BMR was 800 less than they would EXPECT for someone at that weight. They are comparing against the average not that persons BMR at that weight before they got large.
Oh I get it. Thanks for the explanation.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions